How Hard Did Trump Laugh at Mark Kelly LASHING Out at Him in...
American Heroes of 9/11: Todd Beamer and the Passengers of Flight 93
James Talarico Just Went Full Hillary 2016 (and Hopefully With the Same Election...
Democrats RUSH to CONDEMN Attack on Amy Acton … There's Just a Few...
Well, Well, WELL: DataRepublican Thread-Drops Receipts on Anti-Trump VoteVets – GUESS Who...
Abdul El-Sayed's Reason to Abolish ICE Is Both Maddening and Moronic
Monday Morning Meme Madness
Fatal Injection: Socialist Says ‘Nursing Is Political’ and Doesn’t Start or Stop in...
Texas Two-Step: Some of Dem James Talarico’s Lies Require Extra Effort to Unravel...
No Agenda. No Ideas. Just Impeachment: Crow Brags Democrats 'Won’t Hesitate' If They...
AI Causes Concerns, Polls and Common Sense Show
Ohio’s Dem Gov Candidate Amy Acton Screeches 'You Can’t Buy Us!' at Vivek...
Laura Ingraham Slaps Globalist Media
Welcome to the FO Phase: Nike Is Getting Removed From S&P 100 After...
One Bright Spot in a Brutal Cycle: New Hampshire Dems Admit They’re Losing...

Peter Strzok (yes, that one) laments 'the corrupt transformation of our criminal justice system' after Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty

These are dark times for the cause of justice. At least according to Peter Strzok:

Advertisement

What, exactly, is Strzok’s beef?

That’s it in a nutshell. From the Lawfare piece Strzok is pimping:

Ironically, the Clinesmith charges were filed at the same time that the Justice Department awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the case against Flynn—for lack of materiality. The department tied itself into knots to argue that Flynn’s lies were immaterial. Yet, strangely, it gives no such benefit to Clinesmith.

We wonder why these Flynn defenders—led by the president and the attorney general—have not lifted their voices on behalf of Clinesmith. Proof of materiality seems weaker in Clinesmith’s case than in Flynn’s. The CIA email that Clinesmith altered stated accurately that Page was “not a source” but that he was an “operational contact,” that is, someone with a relationship with the CIA. Clinesmith’s alteration arguably clarified the adviser’s relationship with the CIA rather than obscuring it, though this does not excuse his misrepresentation.

In the real world, these details about Clinesmith’s email do not defeat the materiality requirement—especially given that, as we have noted, materiality is typically easy to prove. But the arguments made in defense of Flynn would also seem to apply to Clinesmith. If we applied the ridiculous standard used by the Justice Department in the Flynn case to Clinesmith, then his alteration was similarly not material.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement